Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107682
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAN=NbAL5r7m3hSi5FgobHpxoOL0Rei=QbqegtJsRi8WnE4kX9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+kxMuSNp+DeE+8+Wb+xSyMU0g-gV-3P-NEV_wdLNbFOxZk0Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN=NbAJfHzxW+bLACOD=CVg7y3wV26s+tp_cxCvR44W+4OWJ5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hqhpfH0GT4LXvZUZ8e9HExMD4ZdNdd=+H3j9Q-fqLS999rSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP=w73VR2VA3EPkrQx=Cb8FWqXmRMa_UWLrLNr8+vjmEZONNng@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN=NbA+=yWoL5h738TFf5TOQ8Nfe8NQq9gUG15PXOV7ZOcoiPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVr9J=4FezCwM5RkPBsq-+p7Lne+yROuy4F43Aquem2ybA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVr9J=4FezCwM5RkPBsq-+p7Lne+yROuy4F43Aquem2ybA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 02:00:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH0Uv3GieqSeWVETOwSQ0mxAKvjDmzOJHDTBMv_CDXeT=0udDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: Ken Stanley <dohpaz@gmail.com>, Kosit Supanyo <webdevxp.com@gmail.com>, 
	Bruce Weirdan <weirdan@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] anti-coalescing-operator
From: andreas@dqxtech.net (Andreas Hennings)

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 01:24, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:55 PM Ken Stanley <dohpaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > isset($_SERVER['fname']) && $user->setName($_SERVER['fname']);
> > >
> > > Will return boolean.
> > >
> >
> > Just testing the waters: Is there any appetite to have AND and OR behave
> more like Pythons operator?

Similar to javascript || and &&, although not exactly the same.

> Instead of now:
> (a or b) => bool(true) if either of a or b are true
> (a and b) =>  bool(true) is either of a or b are true
>
> Behave as:
> (a or b) => Value of a if true, b if a is not true but b is, bool(false)
> otherwise.
> (a and b) => Value of b if both are true, bool(false) otherwise.
>
> Coincidentally, this change to T_LOGICAL_AND would server OP's purpose.
>
> I'll tell ya, I'm leaning "No" because BC, but at the same time, AND/OR
> seem to be underutilized constructs and I *suspect* (having done zero
> research), that most existing uses would yield the same result as they do
> now.

At one point I started using these operators because they have
different operator precedence than || and &&, allowing assignment in
conditions without parentheses.
I gave up on this only to comply with coding standards and to not
confuse people.
I would think we will make a lot of people angry if we change this.
Imo, let's not.

Besides, a lot of this can be achieved with the ?: ternary shortcut
(not sure what's the name).

> (a or b) => Value of a if true, b if a is not true but b is, bool(false)
$a ?: ($b ?: false) === ($a ?: $b) ?: false === $a ?: $b ?: false

> (a and b) => Value of b if both are true, bool(false) otherwise.
$a ? ($b ?: false) : false === $a ? $b ?: false : false

https://3v4l.org/q8Al9

It is a bit more verbose, I admit. But in most cases we don't need to
replicate the exact behavior, and a simple ?: will do the trick.

-- Andreas

>
> -Sara